Why Uplay and DRM on Rayman Legends is beneficial to us gamers

[rojimboo]

I just bought this game and whilst it is downloading I thought I would create this thread in continuation from its sister post over at the Anno 2070 forums, to get more constructive debating going on. Keep it clean guys, though, thanks, and Happy New Year!

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the controversial Uplay client software and DRM in general. I mainly want to correct at least two common misconceptions that I have seen people use as an excuse not to play games they want to play (what??? I know it happens).

How does a second digital distribution platform NOT add value to a consumer? I've seen people constantly utter those words - ' It adds nothing' and 'Only Steam should exist'. Anyone with just the slightest knowledge of market economics would realise that competition is healthy and it will drive down the prices for the consumer. Already I have seen sales on multiple games both on Uplay and Origin, and the deals were good and on AAA titles. Do people honestly want Steam to become a monopoly??? Hey, I love GabeN's cute podginess and his DRM platform as much as the next guy, but I'm not gonna pretend piracy isn't an issue and that a publisher doesn't a right to protect it through ever innovative means of server-integrated features, i.e. DRM as long as it does not intrude on me. And another username/password that I can set to 'remember me' does not intrude on me.

As to the fact that an additional username/password is such an incredible hurdle for the average gamer that it puts them off completely from the game - well, I don't know what to say to the concerned parents who think that video games make their children dumber. Except that you are right. If I can manage a password to play hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Ubi games, then I think the average gamer can too. And let's not prove those parents to be right :)

From a technical point and a realist one, I actually think Uplay is just an extension of Ubisoft servers. The reason I say this is that there are already many single-player games requiring an internet connection for various server-integrated features. These features Ubi tries to sugarcoat and make them into a carrot when compared to the offline(stolen) version. It worked quite well with Anno 2070 and not so well with HOMM6 whose developers were scrapped. THIS is the real reason why Uplay exists. Games require upload and download of data from their servers, and to make it more palatable to the masses some rewards are attached to it. This is also the reason why I think Uplay will never go away, and will become a stronger presence.

Benefits of Uplay in addition to Steam

- An alternate client software to that of Steam -> increased competition leads to lower prices and increased innovation in the market place. Stops Steam from becoming a monopoly.

Features of Uplay and benefits

- Achievements give out real in-game rewards via Uplay points(Anno 2070 a bonus scenario, Tom clancy's Splinter Cell blacklist I just got a new suit armour).

- All Ubi games seem to be shifting towards using it except for Rayman - might as well create an account now rather than later.

- If it all works and no bugs encountered, it is quick and painless, it runs faster than Steam with a smaller memory footprint, so fairly unintrusive. You just need an e-mail and a password.

- Can be setup to run so you do not even have to login after the first time, i.e. launch and play completely offline.

- Twitch tv streaming integrated

Benefits of DRM in general

This is quite a complicated and divisive issue. I researched all relevant peer-review material I could and wrote this short literary review about the findings. In brief DRM is beneficial to the gamer/consumer as they experience increased product quality, innovation and social welfare.

References:
Adams, J. S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67:422–436.

Danaher, B., J. Waldfogel. 2012, Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Movie Piracy on Film Box Office Sales. Working Paper. Wellesley College. Boston, Massachusetts.

Danaher, B., S. Dhanasobhon, M. D. Smith, R. Telang. 2013. Understanding Media Markets in the Digital Age: Economics and Methodology. Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Dinah A., 2010, Digital Music Set Free: The Flip Side of DRM, Duke University, Working paper

Danaher, B., M. D. Smith. 2013. Gone in 60 Seconds: The Impact of the Megaupload Shutdown on Movie Sales. Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. (Available from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229349).

Danaher et al 2013, Piracy and Copyright Enforcement Mechanisms, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12945.pdf

Hill,C. 2007, Digital piracy: Causes, consequences,and strategic responses’, Asia Pacific J Manage (2007) 24:9–25,DOI 10.1007/s10490-006-9025-0

Hui, K., I. Png. 2003. Piracy and the legitimate demand for recorded
music. Contributions Econom. Analysis Policy 2(1).

Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model.Academy of Management Review, 16: 366–395.

Jain,S., Digital Piracy: A Competitive Analysis,Marketing Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 2008, pp. 610–626
issn 0732-2399 _ eissn 1526-548X _ 08 _ 2704 _ 0610

Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review, 16: 416–441.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In Growling,D. (Ed.). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. New York: Rand McNally.

Pietz, M. 2010, Digital Piracy:Theory, http://www.ipdigit.eu/2010/10/just-released-digital-piracy-theory/

Sundararajan, 2004: Managing Digital Piracy: Pricing and Protection Information Systems Research 15(3), pp. 287–308

Zhang, 2013, Intellectual Property Strategy and the Long Tail: Evidence from the Recorded Music Industry,Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, [e-mail]

The 2005 GSP Report commissioned by the Business Software Alliance estimates that 35% of software is copied. Software copying rates are as high as 92% in Vietnam and 90% in China. In the United States, copying rates are estimated to be 21%. The study concludes that software copying is one of the industry’s worst problems. The study did not include the positive network effects of copying, which Hui and Png (2003) did and showed that industry estimates of lost profits because of copying more than doubled the actual losses in such a case. Although since 2011 the BSA has not included economic loss figures, rather a commercial pirated value figure, I object to and ignore such estimations due to the inherent errors involved in calculating them.

According to Jain(2008), “Many industry analysts see copying as one of the key threats to profitability and innovation. They claim that copying leads to higher prices for legitimate users, lower profits for the firms, reduced new product innovation and is generally harmful to society .” The paper continues to examine the impact of illegal copying of software and other similar intellectual properties on firms’ prices, profits, and quality choices, even when there are no network effects and the market is saturated.

Controversially, his paper actually finds a case when copying can increase firms’ profits, lead to better quality products and increase social welfare. The assertion is that there is reduced price competition in mature markets with no network externalities, applicable when, for example, markets of entertainment products mature in developing countries with large income disparities (such as China and India). Unfortunately for you, this case is not applicable with this game’s DRM, and the converse is true with regard to copying’s effect on the firm’s profits, product quality, and social welfare.

Edit: OP continued in next post.

[rojimboo]

Dinah et al. (2010), in a paper on DRM and music piracy, came to the same controversial conclusions as that of Jain 2008; that there are indeed scenarios where little or no DRM increases profits. However, like with Jain's paper you must consider first what those scenarios are and when they are applicable. In fact, according to Dinah, ‘the model thus illuminates the importance of two parameters: consumers' pirating effort and the perceived difference in value for DRM-free and DRM-protected versions. With an increase of pirating effort, retail prices for both traditional and digital versions of the product increase, piracy volume declines, demand for both traditional and digital versions increases, and, perhaps most important, the profits of both retailers and the record label increase. Increasing pirating effort is not the only leverage that a record label can use to achieve higher profits though. Smaller perceived value differences between DRM-protected and DRM-free versions have a similar effect, such that piracy volume decreases and the record label's profit increases, as does that of the digital retailer’. So DRM is beneficial for the record label (publisher Ubi) and the digital retailer (Steam, Uplay) and only in the case for the traditional retailer in the music industry, is DRM-free found to increase profits, which is likely why big record labels are utilising such tactics (Emi, Sony, Warner).

Hill (2007) established the only effective strategic responses copyright holders can adopt to deal with pirating. His approach involved first establishing the causes of copying by prior work done (1) work on moral development (Kohlberg, 1969), (2)equity theory (Adams, 1963; Kabanoff, 1991), and (3) moral intensity (Jones, 1991). Based on the causes and economic consequences, both in a static and dynamic sense, Hill then proceeds to offer the only effective strategic responses that copyright-holders can pursue, of which there are seven. The fourth one is relevant with several games like Anno 2070, which is “offer something extra to consumers who purchase the legal good”. “One solution that can works well for computer software is to offer online services, such as periodic upgrades and security patches, to consumers who register the legal product using a security code that is unique to every legal copy of the product. Since those who purchase pirated copies do not have access to a security code, they cannot get these benefits. This strategy effectively raises the value of the legal product, decreasing the perception of inequity.”

Another paper that would appear to promote the use of no DRM in the music piracy is Zhang (2013).The main argument by Zhang is that lowering search costs leads to people buying more niche, lower-selling albums, the long-tail. Meaning that she asserts, in the music industry, 'DRM's sharing restrictions likely raise search costs and hinder product discovery, which may decrease sales'. To make this applicable in the PC gaming software, we would first have to have had a significant positive coming from sharing PC games, to the point of that in the music industry. Arguably, this effect is much smaller than in the music industry, as you cannot play a game at a large social gathering i.e. a party and everyone will start asking what is this amazing song and where did you find it. Furthermore, she finds that 'relaxing sharing restrictions disproportionately increases sales of albums in the long tail significantly but does not benefit top-selling albums'. Even if we were to take this at face value, it would mean DRM is beneficial for the top sellers. But the industries in this regard are yet again different, as really digital distribution platforms also now have indie games and lesser-known games and the 'search cost' is minimal to begin with. She acknowledges the differences between the music industry and the video game industry in her own conclusions, 'My analysis is of course subject to limitations such that generalizing to other contexts should be done with caution. Other settings, such as books, movies, and video games, are different from the recorded music industry in many respects. Notably, products in these other industries take a longer time to consume compared to listening to a song'. And her finding is not applicable at all in developing with weak IP laws and enforcement: 'In settings where the legal framework is weakly enforced, it may not be optimal for firms to relax sharing restrictions, and they instead should consider alternative mechanisms to appropriate returns to innovation.'

Another interesting paper on this (Sundararajan, 2004) where an optimal choice of technological deterrence level is found in a market where sellers can influence the degree of piracy by implementing DRM systems. He finds the optimal response in market where the seller can price discriminate, is to offer lower levels of technology-based protection, to the point where the pirated good will always be inferior to the legal product whilst minimising any impact for the legal user. It would appear overly intrusive DRM, as defined previously, has been found to be detrimental to all, regardless of whether we are dealing with the music industry or the PC software industry, yet a low-level intrusive DRM seems to benefit all.

The argument that DRM increases social welfare rests on the argument that piracy results in reducing sales. If you accept that piracy results in reducing sales then the next question becomes - should content creators (and anyone else involved in the production chain such as distribution platforms like Steam) be worried about these reduced sales? Does piracy reduce overall social welfare by reducing the incentives to create content? Then, if by reverse, we argue that piracy reduces overall social welfare, then a smaller piracy level would increase overall social welfare.

The impact that digital piracy has on sales has been researched extensively. Danaher et al. (2013) collect the dozens of papers from both sides of the argument and conclude that "piracy results in a statistically significant reduction in sales, particularly in emerging digital channels". There also appears to be a sizeable market in converting pirates to purchase the good. Danaher et. al (2012) analysed the effect the HADOPI law in France had on music sales, a legislative measure enacted by the government to track torrenting activities of pirates and first warn them and then fine them. Their paper finds that the law in France caused a 20-25% increase in French music sales. Considering these are largely casual pirates, i.e. the 'hardcore' pirates have multiple options to circumvent the law through the usage of VPN, proxies or Bittorent protocol encryption, the case is made for there existing a large market to convert into sales. Another example of there being a substantial amount of casual pirates ready to buy the product given enough incentive, is that of Megaupload and its sister sites. Danaher et Smith (2013) analysed the impact of the sites shutdown on digital motion picture sales and found that a 1% reduction in Megaupload usage within a particular country caused a 2.5%-3.8% increase in digital sales. They calculated "that this increase translates into a 6-10% increase in revenues from digital movie sales and rentals for two major studios in the 18 weeks after the Megaupload shutdown".

They also note that "while there are a few academic studies analyzing the broader social impact of piracy, standard economic theory suggests that if piracy reduces revenue to content creators that, ceteris paribus, it will also reduce the incentives to create new high quality content, and that any reduction in the supply of creative content could significantly impact overall social welfare."

The mechanism through which digital piracy does this is explained in the literary review done by Pietz (2010). "A general result that we can expect in such a framework [edit:monopoly] is that piracy limits the monopoly power of the supplier of the original. As a consequence, the availability of digital copies at best leaves the firm's profits unchanged(meaning that piracy is not a real threat) or, more realistically, reduces the firm's profits. This is indeed the conclusion reached in a variety of models (see, for instance, Novos and Waldman, 1984, Johnson, 1985, and Belleamme, 2003). When price is the only strategic variable of the firm, three types of reactions are possible: If piracy is not a real threat (because copies have too low a quality/price ratio), no reaction is necessary (piracy is said to be `blockaded'); otherwise, the firm either reduces its price to make all active consumers prefer the original (a `deterrence'strategy), or it sets a larger price and lets some consumers use the pirated good (an `accommodation' strategy). Inevitably, profits are reduced in both the deterrence and the accommodation strategy." Profits that could have been used to create better support or additional and better quality content.

There are a few cases to consider when determining what the effect on social welfare due to piracy would be:

1) Imagine a music artist who has a vested personal interest in seeing that content creators are compensated for their efforts. Imagine an employee of a movie studio that worries that if piracy diminishes studio profits he may lose his job.

2) On a philosophical level, without Intellectual Property (IP) rights, information goods such as movies, songs and software could easily be replicated and sold by anone, limiting the ability of content creators to profit from their work.

3) If piracy diminishes the ability of content creators to profit from their creative efforts (which appears to be the case), the incentives to bring new quality works to the market will also be diminished resulting in either fewer or lower quality works of creative media such as music, motion pictures and software. This is clearly a potential concern not only for producers but also for consumers and policymakers, because if a product that would have existed in the absence of filesharing is never created due to reduced incentives brought about by filesharing, both producers and consumers lose causing an overall net loss in social welfare.

A necessary argument for all three is that content creator must be motivated by the profits they obtain from their works. Focusing on the third case (the second one is philosophical, the first one largely with no counter-arguments), which is the one where there is reasonable debate whether such an argument exists in the world of artistics goods. Such as that in the presence of large enough profits, the content creator cares little for the loss of some additional profit. Also, there may exist musicians for example who would continue to work in the exact same manner even in the face of diminished profitability. However, this says nothing about the rest of the people involved in the production chain, like sound engineers and label executives to distributors, who are clearly more motivated by profits. Blockbuster movies are a clear exception to this, as they operate on a profit-maximising mantra. If the profits are reduced by piracy significantly, then these studios will have less incentive to invest in the creation of such films. This is particularly true for riskier, more innovative films.

The third case would most effectively be shown to be true or false to what extent, through empirical methods; specifically we are talking about the effect of piracy on the supply of creative content. This has proven almost impossible however. Questions like, what creative works would have been created in the absence of piracy - are pretty impossible to show. Nevermind whether piracy may impact the quality of creative works - a very difficult thing to measure. For example, if the number of songs created were to remain the same when piracy rises but the average quality of these songs were lower, how would we observe this lower quality in order to measure it? Also, even when Mother Nature or the world grants us these experiments naturally, such as when Bittorrent appeared and it was shown to massively increase music piracy, or when Limewire was shutdown and was shown to reduce music piracy, the impact to sales was clear and immediate, but any impact to the supply of creative content (if there is one) would have likely been longer-term as firms slowly respond to the changed environment.

Further effects of piracy on the supply of creative content can be found in anecdotal evidence in countries like Spain, which is generally considered a high piracy country, suggests that firms are reluctant to release legal versions of their products or to invest in marketing and promotion of their products (New York Times, August 20, 2011). If the presence of piracy causes these responses, the outcome will be reduced social welfare to any consumers who would have benefitted from the market availability of these products. Marketing, promotions and other services are also an important component of the product experience and a decision of reduce investments in such activities would also constitute social loss by reducing the information available to consumers about products they might benefit from consuming.

Danaher et al. also mention that '...while current empirical evidence of a connection between piracy and product availability is sparse, given standard economic theory it seems reasonable to assume that some connection will exist. Hypothetically, imagine a world in which the moment a major blockbuster film is produced, piracy prevents the studio that developed it from extracting any revenue from theater ticket sales, DVD sales, or other legitimate channels. In other words, imagine a world where everyone can easily obtain motion picture content for free through piracy channels and as a result no one pays for this content. In this hypothetical world, is seems highly unlikely that studios would invest the large fixed costs necessary to develop blockbuster movies. Indeed, this is the very logic behind the copyright protections afforded to content creators by the U.S. Constitution. And thus we propose that, even in the absence of conclusive proof that piracy reduces the incentives to supply quality content, that there is theoretical rationale for governments to consider the possibility that filesharing may negatively impact social welfare.' Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that piracy reduces overall social welfare, and that reduced piracy due to effective deterrents, increases overall social welfare.

The critical issue is then converting a sub-set of those pirates to buy the game, which ends up translating into a significant amount of money because there is a ridiculous number of pirates. This is even after the fact they consider the cost of implementing and running the DRM, the loss associated with perception of intrusive DRM, any possible product innovation loss and harm to social welfare. Even after considering all these aspects , it is still better to have slightly intrusive DRM according to them. The level of intrusiveness of the DRM is arguably one of the main points and there is certainly a level where it is detrimental to, well everyone. Buying specific DRM hardware, ID checks before playing the game via creditcards, passports, fingerprinting or other biometric scans, regional locks etc. are examples. Most games DRM is fairly non-intrusive (having internet, running out activations in an unlikely event), and ends up being a win-win situation for all on the whole (apart from criminals).

I think personally my main issue is - if you say this level of DRM is so intrusive that it harms the sales to such an extent as to not be worthwhile, please show me some evidence. Otherwise, I will take the peer-reviewed research. And my deductive skills, which say that no publisher would continue to repeatedly punish their profits, year after year, if this DRM was indeed harming their profits. And make no mistake - companies operate for profits, and DRM would be the first thing to go if it was so detrimental to them.

[Nightlife Neko]

You're a tool

[rojimboo]

Originally posted by The Gambler:

You're a tool

How constructive.

And keeping it clean I see.

No counter-arguments? At least explain why I am a tool. A tool...to increase discussion on the matters of DRM?

[The Narrator]

"An alternate client software to that of Steam -> increased competition leads to lower prices and increased innovation in the market place. Stops Steam from becoming a monopoly."

If they want to compete, then let them run their own service independant of Steam instead of piggyback on Steam in order to get users for their "competitive" service. Adding Uplay DRM on top of Steam DRM is not introducing any competition. Nobody is turning to Uplay instead of Steam for their software deals.

"Achievements give out real in-game rewards via Uplay points(Anno 2070 a bonus scenario, Tom clancy's Splinter Cell blacklist I just got a new suit armour)."

Steam already gives out cards which can be traded for real $$ for game purchases via Steam Wallet. I have no problems with Uplay incentivizing their service in a similar way. I DO take issue with being forced to use their service when I purchased the game through Steam. If I felt their incentives for using Uplay were adequate, I would make a Uplay account. But forcing me to just leads me to believe the opposite is true since apparently the incentives aren't enough.

"All Ubi games seem to be shifting towards using it except for Rayman - might as well create an account now rather than later."

I choose option three: "not going to create an account now, NOR later." If the game developers want my purchase then they can drop Uplay for games purchased via Steam."

I'm curious, how many games sold via Uplay require Steam DRM? I did a search on the Uplay website for Half-life and Borderlands. Those games are not available there. So I'm honestly curious how many games at Uplay require Steam. Any?

" If it all works and no bugs encountered, it is quick and painless, it runs faster than Steam with a smaller memory footprint, so fairly unintrusive. You just need an e-mail and a password."

IF is an important word. Because IF it doesn't work %100 of the time, then it takes away value from the consumer. I am speaking to Uplay in addition to Steam DRM. Uplay required for games bought directly from Uplay is absolutely fine. Just like Steam login for games bought via Steam is perfectly acceptable.

I do not believe that Steam DRM + Uplay DRM runs faster than Steam DRM alone. There is absolutely NO speed benefit for adding Uplay on top of Steam.

"Can be setup to run so you do not even have to login after the first time, i.e. launch and play completely offline."

Steam also has this feature, so nothing new that makes me want to choose to add Uplay DRM to my Steam purchased games.

The entire topic of piracy is completely irrelevant in the complaint of forcing Uplay on top of Steam. Games do not get "pirated" via Steam. Steam is DRM. Pirated games have no DRM at all, so both Steam and Uplay have no effect on a pirated game. The values of Steam DRM to me as a gamer are this: peace of mind knowing the games I have are virus free, easy multiplayer with my friends, updates downloaded and applied for me, Steam Cloud save games and the knowledge that I am supporting the game developers by purchasing games.

What exactly is Uplay adding to my experience that Steam has not already taken care of in the first place? Nothing. All it HAS done is leave a bad taste in my mouth to the point I will avoid purchasing any games distributed by UBISoft. I am not the only sale lost by this.

Consider how many possible sales are lost, and compare that with the amount of $$ saved by adding a second DRM scheme over Steam (which is $0.00) and all you are left with is a very poor business decision by UBIsoft.

[Letsgetarded🐼]

If DRM stay unintrusive ,i dont have problem with it.(I would like to meet face to face starforce creators.Oh boy..).

And about pirating games..
Nineties are over.I dont have time to play legaly obtained games.
Imagine i check torrents,cleaning malware,integrate patches..
NIGHTMARE.

More dd platforms, more competition,better prices.Why not?

[The Narrator]

Originally posted by Letsgetarded:

More dd platforms, more competition,better prices.Why not?

Except that Raymand Legends right now on Steam = $20. From Uplay? $40. But if you buy it from Steam, you STILL have to sign up with Uplay. Not sure that fits the meaning of competition. :)

[Letsgetarded🐼]

Well,i was more about general situation,not this game only. :)

[Dicky Doodles]

so lemme tell u 1 thing...I remember an interview with the devs, and when they got asked "will it have online coop?", they were shameless enough to say something along the lines of "we could, but we want this to be a couch experience with friends"...THEN THEY HAVE THE BALLS OF PLACING A DRM ON A LOCAL COOP ONLY GAME, Uplay doesnt benefit anyone, not even ubisoft at this point, a long post wont change anything

U cant be that hypocrite, to say "oh yeah, old school", then place a DRM when clearly steam would be enough to handle it...

Noone should ever buy an Ubisoft game as long as Uplay still exists, and in fact, ppl will buy less games from them

[rojimboo]

Originally posted by Stoodie Dain:

"An alternate client software to that of Steam -> increased competition leads to lower prices and increased innovation in the market place. Stops Steam from becoming a monopoly."

If they want to compete, then let them run their own service independant of Steam instead of piggyback on Steam in order to get users for their "competitive" service. Adding Uplay DRM on top of Steam DRM is not introducing any competition. Nobody is turning to Uplay instead of Steam for their software deals.

The argument that Uplay increases price competition and thus reduces prices, relies on the fact that it is remotely succesful. In a saturated market, in terms of consumers already being either on Steam or Origin or both, to become remotely succesful it must thus 'leech' customers away from Steam. Hence, it is beneficial to the gamer for it to do that. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like it either but I can see the economic benefits.

"Achievements give out real in-game rewards via Uplay points(Anno 2070 a bonus scenario, Tom clancy's Splinter Cell blacklist I just got a new suit armour)."

Steam already gives out cards which can be traded for real $$ for game purchases via Steam Wallet. I have no problems with Uplay incentivizing their service in a similar way. I DO take issue with being forced to use their service when I purchased the game through Steam. If I felt their incentives for using Uplay were adequate, I would make a Uplay account. But forcing me to just leads me to believe the opposite is true since apparently the incentives aren't enough.

It is likely forced because they don't want to make separate versions with separate achievements for all digital distribution platforms. Now that Uplay games are on sale on Origin, they would have to have separate achievements there too. Surely that involves a cost, that is endured by the consumer.

"All Ubi games seem to be shifting towards using it except for Rayman - might as well create an account now rather than later."

I choose option three: "not going to create an account now, NOR later." If the game developers want my purchase then they can drop Uplay for games purchased via Steam."

I'm curious, how many games sold via Uplay require Steam DRM?

That would be all Steamworks games sold in Uplay and Origin. Think Tomb Raider on Uplay or Origin, for example.

" If it all works and no bugs encountered, it is quick and painless, it runs faster than Steam with a smaller memory footprint, so fairly unintrusive. You just need an e-mail and a password."

IF is an important word. Because IF it doesn't work %100 of the time, then it takes away value from the consumer. I am speaking to Uplay in addition to Steam DRM. Uplay required for games bought directly from Uplay is absolutely fine. Just like Steam login for games bought via Steam is perfectly acceptable.

I do not believe that Steam DRM + Uplay DRM runs faster than Steam DRM alone. There is absolutely NO speed benefit for adding Uplay on top of Steam.

Agreed, if there are inconveniences and bugs it removes value. However, having close to two dozen games on Uplay, I've yet to experience any serious bug. Some CTDs but I believe those were game related as the game exe crashed and not Uplay.

The entire topic of piracy is completely irrelevant in the complaint of forcing Uplay on top of Steam. Games do not get "pirated" via Steam. Steam is DRM. Pirated games have no DRM at all, so both Steam and Uplay have no effect on a pirated game. The values of Steam DRM to me as a gamer are this: peace of mind knowing the games I have are virus free, easy multiplayer with my friends, updates downloaded and applied for me, Steam Cloud save games and the knowledge that I am supporting the game developers by purchasing games.

You are in fact supporting the game developers less if you bought a Uplay game on Steam (I did too) as the distribution fee goes to Steam - who contributed nothing to the making of the game. If it goes to the publisher, there is at least a chance some money will trickle down to the developers.

Regarding the topic of piracy and why I brought it up: my main argument about how DRM is beneficial is that an effective piracy-deterring DRM will result in increased sales, which leads to increased product quality, innovation and social welfare. To show this, I need to show the scale of piracy and that there are indeed plenty of lost sales due to it. That is why the admittedly long literary review includes them.

Consider how many possible sales are lost, and compare that with the amount of $$ saved by adding a second DRM scheme over Steam (which is $0.00) and all you are left with is a very poor business decision by UBIsoft.

This is indeed a real issue, and is considered under 'perceived level of intrusiveness'. For some it is too high, (you) for others, i.e. everyone who bought the game it is not.

[TickledBlue]

I might be missing something, as I admit I didn't bother doing more than skimming your barrage of quotes and personal opion, but I think your basic premise is flawed. People are generally opposed to DRM because it provides no benefit to "them", I'm pretty sure none of them care much for economic theory or that UPlay provides (laughable) competition for Steam (GoG provides a greater amount of competition - still laugably small - than UPLay and it's DRM free).

You're other benefits of UPlay boil down to not actually being, you know, beneficial:

Uplay lets you unlock in game stuff - so basically the game is crippled unless you go via UPlay? That's not a benefit, I don't see how you could say it is. Let's not get into discussions of Day 0 DLC shall we.

All Ubisoft games are headed that way so get an account now... WTF? How is that a benefit? You're saying suck it up because you'll need to at some time in the future anyway? Where is my benefit in that?

"If no bugs" it has a smaller memory footprint than steam... again WTF? That's not a benefit. On top of Steam's DRM I need to run another that chews up some more memory and spies on my gaming activities? Once again this is not a benefit to me as a user. It's a loss - you're just saying it's not as big a loss as running (of course if you mange your game library via steam then you have to run it first then it launches UPlay so you have to suffer both).

Can be set up so it will run automatically without needing to log in each time... again WTF? How is that a benefit. That is just automating the inconvience away for a period. I guarantee you will still need to log in occasionally - how is that a benefit to me as a user?

Your economic arguments notwithstanding (I'd call them all into question if I had the time or inclination to seek out all your sources and read them to ensure you're not quoting out of context - but I don't so I'll let them stand for now - but remember that you're talking about a product that effectively has no scarcity but that is being forced to be sold like a scarce product. DRM and region locking are tools to apply artificial scarcity to software - otherwise it would have perfectly elastic supply and could not vary with demand) too many people have issues with DRM causing their games not to work - that is the issue, that is why people don't want it.

I don't like piracy any more than the next guy but DRM is little in the way of deterant and only negatively impacts me as a legititmate user, in general pirates get a better version of the games than I do. Sometimes it doesn't get in my way at all, true, but that's not the case most of the time. The more intrusive and secure the DRM the more likely it is to cause me some amount of heartache.

Like I said above, I don't have the time or inclination to read your myriad quotes and whatnot, but I don't think anyone is arguing that piracy has negative consequences. I think you'd find researched evidence that it also has positive consequences - what the net outcome is I suspect is a much more difficult proposition to work out than your quotes papers seem to indictate (most economic theory works by assuming away the chaotic nuances of reality in order to focus in on the issues at hand, but in doing so it loses the ability to acurately reflect reality and it's abiltiy to predict and explain can be compromised if the wrong elements are assumed away - and they often are). What I think you're missing is that DRM is not effective at combating piracy unless it strays into the "too restrictive" end of the scale which ends up having negative consequences for all.

Still I did the same thing as you - I used too much text:

All that matters is:

You're premise is flawed and all but one of your UPlay benefits are not benefits, and that one is almost completely inapplicable to UPlay as it's about as competitive as a 1 legged sloth in an arse kicking competition.

[rojimboo]

Originally posted by TickledBlue:

I might be missing something, as I admit I didn't bother doing more than skimming your barrage of quotes and personal opion, but I think your basic premise is flawed. People are generally opposed to DRM because it provides no benefit to "them", I'm pretty sure none of them care much for economic theory or that UPlay provides (laughable) competition for Steam (GoG provides a greater amount of competition - still laugably small - than UPLay and it's DRM free).

Yes but it's mere presence, it's existence, is enough to create increased price competition in the market, compared to no Uplay. Already there are sizeable sales on both Uplay and Origin, so they are catching up in this regard.

[The Narrator]

"That would be all Steamworks games sold in Uplay and Origin. Think Tomb Raider on Uplay or Origin, for example."

Except that Tomb Raider is not available on Uplay. In fact, EVERY Valve/Steam game that I searched for on Uplay is not available. :) Every where I look I see no value being added by Uplay, at least for me. Ultimately, that's my bottom line. Uplay game? No thanks. For those who like it, great. No issue with your choice. I'm just one of the many who speak up and let the game makers know that Uplay is costing them $$. It's pretty simple really. How much money would they lose in missed sales and piracy if they did not add a second layer of DRM to Steam purchased games? Zero. Are they losing any money because of Uplay being added? You betcha.

[rojimboo]

Originally posted by Stoodie Dain:

"That would be all Steamworks games sold in Uplay and Origin. Think Tomb Raider on Uplay or Origin, for example."

Except that Tomb Raider is not available on Uplay. In fact, EVERY Valve/Steam game that I searched for on Uplay is not available. :) Every where I look I see no value being added by Uplay, at least for me. Ultimately, that's my bottom line. Uplay game? No thanks. For those who like it, great. No issue with your choice. I'm just one of the many who speak up and let the game makers know that Uplay is costing them $$. It's pretty simple really. How much money would they lose in missed sales and piracy if they did not add a second layer of DRM to Steam purchased games? Zero. Are they losing any money because of Uplay being added? You betcha.

Yes it is available, Tomb raider andTomb Raider Survival Edition, 50% off currently. Pretty much every Square Enix game seems to be on there, including the hitmans and final fantasys. Not sure where you are looking. Or perhaps there is some regionality at play here, this is the EU.

[The Narrator]

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Yes it is available, Tomb raider andTomb Raider Survival Edition, 50% off currently. Pretty much every Square Enix game seems to be on there, including the hitmans and final fantasys. Not sure where you are looking. Or perhaps there is some regionality at play here, this is the EU.

Hmm, when I go to http://uplay.ubi.com/en-US/? and type "Tomb Raider" in the search box it reterns 0 results. If I type in "assassin" it returns 7 results. So it is showing me they have Assassin's Creed games for sale, but no Tomb Raider. I didn't even get 1 match for just "tomb". So if they are selling Tomb Raider, they certainly are not making it easy to find. Can you send me the Uplay link for it?

[rojimboo]

Originally posted by Stoodie Dain:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Yes it is available, Tomb raider andTomb Raider Survival Edition, 50% off currently. Pretty much every Square Enix game seems to be on there, including the hitmans and final fantasys. Not sure where you are looking. Or perhaps there is some regionality at play here, this is the EU.

Hmm, when I go to http://uplay.ubi.com/en-US/? and type "Tomb Raider" in the search box it reterns 0 results. If I type in "assassin" it returns 7 results. So it is showing me they have Assassin's Creed games for sale, but no Tomb Raider. I didn't even get 1 match for just "tomb". So if they are selling Tomb Raider, they certainly are not making it easy to find. Can you send me the Uplay link for it?

Yeah I searched via the actual client, but you are right when I search non-logged in through their website, I get 0 results. But if I browse their promotions, I see it. They need to fix this lol.

http://shop.ubi.com/store/ubiemea/fr_FR/pd/ThemeID.8605700/productID.275872500/Tomb-Raider-Survival-Edition